Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] More evidence

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
R

reznwerks

Guest
Evolution of Whale Hearing Unfolds in Fossil Record

Middle ear of the fossil whale Remingtonocetus from India, approximately 43-46 million years old. The tympanic bone is seen from above, as it is cradling two of the ear ossicles, the malleus and incus

ARLINGTON, Va.—An international team of scientists has traced the evolution of hearing in modern cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). "This study of the early evolution of whales demonstrates the changes that took place in whales' outer and middle ears, required for the transition from a land-based to a marine-based existence," said Rich Lane, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s geology and paleontology program, which funded the research.

The findings are published in the Aug. 12 issue of the journal Nature.

The ear is the most important sense organ for modern toothed whales, say scientists, because these whales locate their prey using echolocation. Directional hearing is critical: A blind such whale could find food without much trouble; a deaf one would starve.

The study documents how hearing in these whales evolved. The research is based on cetacean fossils representing four groups of early whales. The earliest cetaceans, pakicetids (those that swam in ancient seas 50 million years ago), used the same sound transmission system as did land mammals, and so had poor underwater hearing. More recent cetaceans, remingtonocetids and protocetids (those that lived 43-46 million years ago), retained the land-mammal system, but also developed a new sound transmission system.

"The fossils document the ways in which cetacean hearing has changed, starting with ear fossils of whales' land ancestors and ending with the ear of near-modern looking whales," said Hans Thewissen, an anatomist at the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine (NEOUCOM). Thewissen and NEOUCOM researcher Sirpa Nummela led the study.

The newer system was similar to that of modern whales. The later whales could hear better in water than pakicetids could, and could also hear in air, but hearing in both media was compromised by the existence of two systems. With the advent of basilosauroids (approximately 40 million years ago), the old land-mammal ear disappeared, and the modern cetacean sound transmission system began its development. Although basilosaurids were not echolocators (they lacked the sound-emission equipment of later echolocators), they had taken a major step forward in refining underwater sound reception.

In addition to Thewissen and Nummela, the research team includes Sunil Bajpai, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee; S. Taseer Hussain, Howard University College of Medicine; and Kishor Kumar, Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun, India. Support for the project was also provided by the Department of Science and Technology, India.


-NSF-



The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of nearly $5.58 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives about 40,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes about 11,000 new funding awards. The NSF also awards over $200 million in professional and service contracts yearly.

Receive official NSF news electronically through the e-mail delivery and notification system, Custom News Service. To subscribe, enter the NSF Home Page at: http://www.nsf.gov/home/cns/#new and fill in the information under "new users."


http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/newsroom/pr.c ... 0000000120
 
Blue, it would be more helpful if you showed what, out of all these web pages, you are trying to make a point of. Maybe do something like "Whale hearing explained in creationist terms in URL..." And maybe sow a paragraph from it that summarizes how it refutes the original post.

Quath
 
My guess is she hasn't even read the contents of those websites, let alone actually studied what they say for herself. It supports her presupposed religion and that's all that matters to her, whether she has looked at it objectively or not (of course, this is very unlikely). As of yet I have seen no compelling arguments from her against evolution, just a barrage of links to biased, incorrect apologist websites, and this alone speaks in volumes.
 
blueeyeliner has taken the method of tenacity regarding the fixing of her beliefs. It doesn't have anything to do with reality, it's more an undying support for that which one has faith in. Anything that doesn't scan with her list of beliefs is false, in her opinion. Sod objectivity.

Blinkered ignorance, to shorten the explanation.
 
I looked at the website and it is just garbage. It says stuff like we can not measure distances to stars greater than 100 light years. Even though that is not true, say for the sake of argument it is true. We know the density of stars per volume from that. We can count the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy (200 to 400 billion stars) and based on out 100 light year observations arrive that the diameter of our galaxy must be 100,000 light years. So we must be getting light at least 50,000 years old if we were sitting in the middle (which we are not so it would take longer). Add to that that we see other galaxies that are separate from ours with just as many stars as our galaxy. Now ever, if they were smooshed against us, we just added another 100,000 years to see their light.

So just based on that argument, we know that light must have been traveling a very long time. So the other tricks are to say that light had been going faster. If so, it would have changed all the physics of the universe. The speed of light control the atomic radius and electromagatism. So most likely stars would not have been able to form if the speed of light was that much different.

Another trick is to sya that God created the light in transit. Now why would God go through all the trouble of making the universe look old? That is like saying that God would change the light from a red rock to blue. We would see a blue rock, but God would want us to believe it was red.

his web site also says that carbon dating doesn't show the Earth is old, but no scientist claims that. They use other radiometric dating like uranium ratios.

It says that matter should be eavenly distributed in space by the Big Bang, but the Big Bang doesn't say this. Quantum effects can explain the variations in space.

Everything else is just taking the Bible's version without any real proof.

Basically, if you pass this to anyone who knows science, you will just get laughed at. It would be like passing a "flat earth" web site around.

Quath
 
Quath said:
I looked at the website and it is just garbage.

:roll: Typical argument from someone who cannot accept what the truth is,and how evolution cannot be proven,and in fact cannot support
itself. It's a religion not a science. Thats a fact of life,amen.
 
blueeyeliner said:
Typical argument from someone who cannot accept what the truth is,and how evolution cannot be proven,and in fact cannot support itself. It's a religion not a science. Thats a fact of life,amen.
I gave you scientific arguments, not religious arguments. Reject my arguments with science, if you think science supports your beliefs.

Quath
 
Quath said:
blueeyeliner said:
Typical argument from someone who cannot accept what the truth is,and how evolution cannot be proven,and in fact cannot support itself. It's a religion not a science. Thats a fact of life,amen.
I gave you scientific arguments, not religious arguments. Reject my arguments with science, if you think science supports your beliefs.

Quath

8-) I didn't know this was a science forum,hmmmmm.......
Your problem is not connected with science but rather religion.
This is about religion verses religion. Science is part of everyones
life,but your debate is religion verses religion pure and simple.
Thats why I tell you if you are a true Godfree atheist,why do you
claim to accept evolution? You are not asked to believe in anything.
 
blueeyeliner said:
I didn't know this was a science forum,hmmmmm.......
Your problem is not connected with science but rather religion.
This is about religion verses religion. Science is part of everyones
life,but your debate is religion verses religion pure and simple.
Thats why I tell you if you are a true Godfree atheist,why do you
claim to accept evolution? You are not asked to believe in anything.
I see no evidence for any god, so that makes me an atheist. I look at the scientific evidence for life and I arrive that evolution makes the most sense. Why do you think that 95% of scientists support evolution? This includes 40% of scientists that believe God created with evolution. Do you believe that 95% of scientists are not looking scientifically at this problem and only religious people are?

Quath
 
blueeyeliner said:
8-) I didn't know this was a science forum,hmmmmm.......

The forum isn't, but this section of it is.

Your problem is not connected with science but rather religion.
This is about religion verses religion.

No, it's about Creationism (cult) vs. Evolution (science)

Thats why I tell you if you are a true Godfree atheist,why do you
claim to accept evolution? You are not asked to believe in anything.

Because evolution isn't a religion.
 
Quath said:
blueeyeliner said:
I didn't know this was a science forum,hmmmmm.......
Your problem is not connected with science but rather religion.
This is about religion verses religion. Science is part of everyones
life,but your debate is religion verses religion pure and simple.
Thats why I tell you if you are a true Godfree atheist,why do you
claim to accept evolution? You are not asked to believe in anything.
I see no evidence for any god, so that makes me an atheist. I look at the scientific evidence for life and I arrive that evolution makes the most sense. Why do you think that 95% of scientists support evolution? This includes 40% of scientists that believe God created with evolution. Do you believe that 95% of scientists are not looking scientifically at this problem and only religious people are?

Quath

:B-fly: Quath,I have not found one shred of evidence that shows
that 95% of scientists believe evolution,but if they really did,it wouldn't
carry any weight with me. I know God is alive,amen. The truth is that
some scientists believe in evolution and some scientists don't.
Many people whether they are believers in God or not don't accept the
religious belief of evolution.
http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/evolution.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... m/evol.htm

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/amevolve.htm
Very Impressive!
 
The Tuatha'an said:
blueeyeliner said:
8-) I didn't know this was a science forum,hmmmmm.......

The forum isn't, but this section of it is.

Your problem is not connected with science but rather religion.
This is about religion verses religion.

No, it's about Creationism (cult) vs. Evolution (science)

[quote:49c4b]Thats why I tell you if you are a true Godfree atheist,why do you
claim to accept evolution? You are not asked to believe in anything.

Because evolution isn't a religion.[/quote:49c4b]

:wink: I say tea,you say tay,I say tomatoe,you say tomata,either way
this is what you are gonna get. Check this out and really try to focus this
go round,k? I didn't see a post calling this forum Science,if it is,why would
evolution be involved?
Evolution is a practice taken from religion,and this is a fact you'll no doubt
have to accept one day,or join a religious group in which I am confident you loathe. had it not dawned on your tiny micro-scopic mindset yet,that
not all christians are against evolution,it's always been in religion,and it never stoped being in religion.
Creationism is an occult? I think not when we can actually see creation,amen. Who is twisting your arm to believe anything anyway?
 
Quath said:
blueeyeliner said:
Typical argument from someone who cannot accept what the truth is,and how evolution cannot be proven,and in fact cannot support itself. It's a religion not a science. Thats a fact of life,amen.
I gave you scientific arguments, not religious arguments. Reject my arguments with science, if you think science supports your beliefs.

Quath

8-) true Science rejects the false claims of the new re-packaged old
pagan religion of evolution. It's something old being made to look new.
You cannot use science to make your claims when it so clearly rejects
them all. Your debate is merely religion verses religion.
http://www.carmical.net/articles/against.html
http://www.aboundingjoy.com/molecular-fs.html
 
blueeyeliner said:
Quath,I have not found one shred of evidence that shows that 95% of scientists believe evolution,but if they really did,it wouldn't carry any weight with me.
I have shown you a Gallop poll before that had this. But like you said, evidence means nothing when you have your faith.

I have seen the "anti-evolution" statements by scientists that are used to fuel these web pages and books. I can also tell you, that about 95% are misquotes or are taken out of context. For example, a scientists would say something like "Evolutionary theory hasnot been able to explain how mice evolve." Then they would go on to say something like "until now." Only the first part of that sentence is used as "proof" that this scientists doubts evolution when the exact opposite is true.

If evolution were false or doubted, why would 95% of scientists believe in it? I looked further into the Gallup poll and saw "Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson, 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%. " (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?postid=1260898)

Quath
 
[Quath] maybe this will help you?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=2670[/quote]


If evolution were false or doubted, why would 95% of scientists believe in it? I looked further into the Gallup poll and saw "Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson, 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%. " (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?postid=1260898)

:B-fly: I know you cannot accept the truth about evolution,but
I hope one day that you accept the truth about God.
If you are searching for the truth,you'll get there.
I am getting tired of this subject,not because it hasn't been great fun
it has,and you all keep my mind off of the stress I go through at times.
I really enjoy all of you,but right now I want to take a break. No,I don't
feel defeated at all,I just need to get back into my bible studies with my
fellow christians,but I don't want to abandon you,so don't think that.
When I feel better about things with my son,I'll get back on this topic,o.k?
I do like you as a good debate friend,o.k? I hope you know that.
You give me a good debate,and I enjoy it.
P.S. My son is suppose to go to Iraq soon.

Quath[/quote]
 
Back
Top